CLAT PG 2025 Question Paper (SET B) Available: Download Solutions and Answer Key pdf

The lack of reliable electricity supply for many citizens not only hinders economic development but also disproportionately affects communities, including women and low-income households, further perpetuating inequalities. Therefore, the right to a healthy environment encapsulates the principle that every individual has the entitlement to live in an environment that is clean, safe, and conducive to their well-being. The promotion of renewable energy sources plays a crucial role in promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society, especially in rural and underserved areas. This contributes to poverty alleviation, enhances quality of life, and fosters inclusive growth and development across the nation. Therefore, transitioning to renewable energy is not just an environmental imperative but also a strategic investment in India’s future prosperity, resilience, and sustainability. The right to equality under Art. 14 and the right to life under Art. 21 must be appreciated in the context of the decisions of this court, the actions and commitments of the state on the national and international levels, and scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. By recognising the right to a healthy environment, states are compelled to prioritise environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root cause of climate change and safeguarding the well-being of present and future generations.

Ongwen was found guilty of 61 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, enslavement, forced marriage, rape, and conscription of children under the age of 15 into armed groups. The ICC’s judgment emphasized the importance of accountability for leaders who exploit children in conflicts and commit sexual and gender-based crimes. A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law.

We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or any other foreign country. While we are open to insights from foreign sources, we must build our own jurisprudence. The argument that new law does not recognize strict and absolute liability cannot deter us from adopting it. Enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities must conduct them with the highest safety standards. The court also discussed the scope of Epistolary jurisdiction, emphasizing that procedural hurdles should not impede access to justice, as procedure is merely a handmaid of justice.

The law relating to custody of a child requires courts to consider statutes and rights but not be bound solely by them. The court acts under *parens patriae* jurisdiction to prioritize the child’s welfare, including physical comfort, health, education, intellectual development, and moral and ethical values. If the child is old enough to form a preference, the court may consider it but retains the final authority. Similarly, in ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal,’ the Supreme Court stated that when parents present conflicting demands, courts must focus on the child's welfare over legalistic interpretations, considering human angles and moral and ethical aspects. As observed in the ‘Mausami Moitra Ganguli’ case, moral and ethical values are as important, if not more, than physical comforts for the child's welfare.

The environmental rule of law enhances understanding of past and present environmental challenges and the future risks posed by humanity's actions. It bridges science, regulatory decisions, and policy perspectives, involving all stakeholders in addressing environmental degradation, climate change, and habitat destruction. It emphasizes concepts like sustainable development and the polluter pays principle, recognizing the indivisible and integrated nature of the environment. It acknowledges that the state of the environment in one region impacts others globally due to the interconnectedness of natural elements. The environmental rule of law strives for a unified approach to solving pressing issues, such as rising sea levels, desertification, and temperature increases, which threaten the survival of the global ecosystem and humanity.

The word ‘right’ derives from the Latin *ius* and relates to concepts of justice and jurisprudence. Aquinas recognized rights as subjective (belonging to individuals) and objective (morally or legally correct actions). In contrast, Hobbes, inspired by Benthamite and Austinian positivism, defined rights as liberties in the absence of duties, claiming individuals had most rights in a state of nature. This view represents a regression, as it ignores the correlation between rights and duties. Without duties, rights lose their significance, as no individual would be protected from harm or interference. Hohfeld’s framework clarified this relationship, categorizing rights into claim-rights, liberties, powers, and immunities, each correlating with corresponding duties, ensuring their functional coherence.

Justice Ahmadi stressed that sufficient time has passed since the establishment of tribunals under Articles 323-A and 323-B, warranting an evaluation of whether they have met their intended objectives. He recommended that the Law Commission of India conduct a comprehensive study of tribunals to ensure their independence and improve public confidence in their functioning. The study should propose changes to relevant statutes and suggest a model for constituting tribunals with enhanced autonomy. The ineffectiveness of alternative mechanisms for judicial review was also criticized, reaffirming that judicial review and remedy are fundamental rights of citizens. Justice delivery through tribunals was deemed inadequate, necessitating immediate attention for reform.

In *Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma*, it was noted that while live-in relationships are not offences, the DV Act was enacted to protect women in such arrangements, provided the relationship qualifies as "in the nature of marriage" under Section 2(f). Other statutes like Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 498-A IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act address women’s rights and protection in specific contexts, such as maintenance, mental cruelty, and dowry-related offences. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and the Hindu Marriage Act address maintenance, marriage solemnisation, and divorce for legally wedded Hindu wives. The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed examination of facts to determine whether a relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage," as opposed to a live-in relationship simpliciter.

Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows winding up of companies on specific grounds, including those unrelated to financial distress, such as special resolutions or fraudulent conduct. In contrast, the IBC focuses on reviving insolvent companies through sacrifices by all stakeholders, including workmen, secured creditors, and the government, to achieve survival and regeneration. These distinct frameworks cannot be equated when examining alleged violations of Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution. The waterfall mechanism under the IBC ensures fairness in allocating proceeds during insolvency but differs in purpose and application from the Companies Act provisions. The judgment in *Moser Baer Karamchari Union v. Union of India (2023)* highlighted that the objectives of these two laws are distinct, addressing different circumstances and requiring separate judicial interpretations.

(2) The mandates of the law must be communicated to the people to whom they are directed. (3) Newly announced principles of law, except on rare occasions, should be applied only in a prospective manner. Retroactive application of changes in prescribed norms, subject to the presence of compelling extenuating circumstances, should be avoided. (4) Standards of action and inaction should be clearly stated. Fuller concedes that the lawmaker cannot specify with absolute clarity exactly what is demanded of each individual in every instance when the law may affect him. He does, however, assert that the duty to clarify the law should be delegated to the enforcement bodies only to the extent that such action is required by the environment in which the law must operate. (5) Arguing that respect for the law calls for consistency, Fuller maintains that the originators of laws should take great pains to see that the body of law is as free as possible from contradictory mandates. (6) Emphasizing that law is tied to the capabilities of human beings, Fuller insists that those who prescribe the norms required of individuals must refrain from imposing impossible standards of action or inaction. A stated norm which demands an absurd course of action would violate Fuller’s idea of the “internal morality of law.” (7) While stare decisis, of recent date, has been viewed by some, if not many people, as a barrier on the pathways to needed change, Fuller is of the opinion that abiding by previously announced norms is desirable in and of itself. He finds that frequency of change, by its very nature, tends to have a deleterious impact upon the persons who are subjected to an abrupt alteration of the requirements which the law imposes upon them. (8) The student of American history is familiar with Andrew Jackson’s assertion to the effect that while the Supreme Court might render a judgment, it lacked the means by which it might be implemented.

The court held that a mortgage by conditional sale must be evidenced by a single document under Section 58(c), whereas a sale with a condition of retransfer may involve multiple documents. The execution of a separate agreement for reconveyance suggests the transaction is not a mortgage. To determine the nature of the agreement, factors like the existence of a debtor-creditor relationship, property valuation, transaction value, reconveyance duration, and intent of the parties are considered. The language of the agreement is important but not always conclusive. In *Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya Ors (2023)*, the court emphasized that all factors must be assessed holistically to discern the true nature of the transaction.

In *Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)*, the court affirmed that the power to pardon is exercised on the advice of the Executive under Article 74(1) of the Constitution. This power enables the President to re-examine evidence and decide on guilt or sentence without altering the judicial record. The Presidential power under Article 72 is distinct from judicial authority, and its exercise does not constitute an extension of judicial powers. Even though reasons for granting pardon need not be disclosed, the decision must be based on legitimate and relevant considerations. The judgment in *Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)* highlighted the President’s constitutional responsibility in the context of pardoning powers and emphasized that the affected party is not entitled to reasons for the decision.

Section 47 of the Registration Act ensures that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced to operate had registration not been required. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, mandates that the transfer of immovable property valued above Rs. 100 can only be made through a registered instrument. The Supreme Court referred to *Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer*, which balanced Section 54’s requirements with Section 47’s deeming fiction. The Court highlighted that Section 54 differentiates between the transfer of tangible immovable property valued above Rs. 100, which requires registration, and property valued below Rs. 100, which may be transferred through a registered document or delivery of possession. The decision reaffirms the importance of registration in transferring ownership of immovable property.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 broadly defined ‘industry’ to include business, trade, manufacture, and related activities. However, ambiguity remained about statutory bodies and non-profit organizations. In this case, the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board argued that it was not an industry due to its statutory duties and public welfare objectives. Conversely, the respondents contended that the Board’s activities fell under the Act’s definition of industry, entitling its employees to labour protections. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice M. Hameedullah Beg, provided a broad and inclusive definition of ‘industry,’ focusing on the nature of the activity and the employer-employee relationship. This interpretation extended labour protections to workers in public utility services, statutory bodies, and some non-profit organizations. The judgment emphasized the judiciary’s role in promoting social justice and safeguarding workers’ rights in a rapidly industrializing nation.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that liberty cannot be protected in violation of the law and that rule of law must prevail for all fundamental rights, including liberty under Article 21 and equality under Article 14, to be upheld. She invoked Plato's curative theory of punishment, likening penalties to medicine intended to reform offenders and reduce their burden on society. However, she also noted the competing interests of justice for victims' families and the convicts' right to a second chance through remission. She questioned whether heinous crimes against women should allow for remission and reduction in sentence, highlighting the societal and ethical considerations in balancing punishment with justice and reform.

The term "representative-in-interest" includes the assignee of a contractual interest. While the Contract Act does not explicitly address assignability, courts have consistently held that obligations cannot be assigned without the consent of the promisee. This principle, highlighted in *Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. (1962)*, states that such consent results in novation, effectively substituting liabilities. Conversely, rights under a contract are assignable unless the contract is personal in nature or assignment is restricted by law or agreement. These principles ensure clarity in handling contractual interests while respecting the original intent of the parties.

The Supreme Court, in *State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024)*, examined the constitutional vision of equality and the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs). Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, asserting that the presidential list of SCs under Article 341 can only be amended by Parliament, not by states. Sub-classification within this list, she argued, would violate Article 341’s intent, create exclusions, and constitute a colorable exercise of power. Justice Trivedi emphasized adherence to the plain interpretation of the Constitution, stating that preferential treatment for sub-classes undermines equality and deprives others within the same category of their rights. She upheld the decision in *E.V. Chinnaiah*, emphasizing that affirmative action must remain within constitutional boundaries.

Section 11 of the SEBI Act mandates SEBI to protect investor interests, regulate the securities market, and promote its development through necessary measures. Section 30 empowers SEBI to frame regulations consistent with the Act. SEBI exercises wide-ranging powers, including delegated legislative, administrative, and adjudicatory powers, to enforce its regulations. These regulations form the backbone of India’s securities market framework. SEBI follows a consultative process while framing and amending regulations, involving advisory committees with experts, market players, retired judges, academicians, and representatives from industry and investor associations. The process includes public consultation, ensuring transparency and adaptability in regulating the dynamic securities market.

As described by Henkin, international organisations represent "new laws at its birth." The UN Charter and agencies such as the WHO, OECD, and ILO have transformed the sources, actors, and processes of international law. Since its inception with 51 member states, the UN has grown to 193 members, evolving into a diverse institution that safeguards global order. Recognised as a global constitutional organisation, the UN is crucial for maintaining international peace and security. These organisations have profoundly impacted the evolution and functionality of international law over the past century.

For a duty of care to exist, three conditions must be satisfied: (i) foreseeability of damage, (ii) proximity of relationship, and (iii) whether it is “just, fair, and reasonable” to impose a duty. In *Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman (1990)*, the court emphasized the standard of care required in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below it. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: identifying the qualities of a reasonable person, determining the care such a person would take under the circumstances, and assessing if the defendant took less care than required. Negligence as a tort consists of a legal duty, breach of that duty, and resulting damage, as reiterated in *Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum (1997)*.

It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that no material should be relied upon without giving the affected party an opportunity to respond. The right to know the evidence or material is part of the right to defend oneself. If a decision is made without disclosing such material, it amounts to a denial of a fair opportunity and vitiates the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must disclose any material it relies on during adjudication. The test for disclosure is whether the material is relevant to the adjudication. The affected party must demonstrate that non-disclosure caused prejudice, such as showing that the outcome would have been different if the material had been disclosed. These principles were reiterated in *Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2023)*.

It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that no material should be relied upon without giving the affected party an opportunity to respond. The right to know the evidence or material is part of the right to defend oneself. If a decision is made without disclosing such material, it amounts to a denial of a fair opportunity and vitiates the decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must disclose any material it relies on during adjudication. The test for disclosure is whether the material is relevant to the adjudication. The affected party must demonstrate that non-disclosure caused prejudice, such as showing that the outcome would have been different if the material had been disclosed. These principles were reiterated in *Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2023)*.

In *Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956)*, Justice Vivian Bose explained that Section 106 addresses exceptional circumstances where certain facts are "especially" within the accused's knowledge. The section does not shift the burden of proving innocence onto the accused but requires them to explain facts pre-eminently within their knowledge. Interpreting it otherwise would lead to an untenable conclusion, such as requiring the accused to prove they did not commit a crime. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation under Section 106 may serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances, as noted in *State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar Ors. (2000)*.

The Court held that double taxation occurs when the same subject matter is taxed twice. GST principles do not allow for such imposition. The importer, treated as a deemed recipient under the reverse charge mechanism, cannot be taxed for a service they have not directly availed. This interpretation stretches the scope of the reverse charge mechanism, intended to simplify tax collection by shifting liability from the service provider to the recipient, especially when the service provider is outside India. The Court emphasized that taxation must have legislative backing and align with constitutional principles, including non-contravention of fundamental rights. The IGST levy on ocean freight under the reverse charge mechanism without proper legislative authority was found unconstitutional.